Posted on 05/12/2008 6:43:43 PM PDT by tueffelhunden
It's probably no secret to anyone who reads my column regularly that I will not be voting for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president.
But I also will not be voting for John McCain.
I could tell you all the reasons and have expressed them already in a number of columns in recent months. But this time, I'll let someone with whom I seldom agree express them for me.
His name is Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at The New Republic. Here's what he wrote in that magazine:
"Even though it is in the public record, McCain's voting behavior during Bush's first term is almost never mentioned in the press anymore. Yet McCain's secret history is simply astonishing. It is no exaggeration to say that, during this crucial period, McCain was the most effective advocate of the Democratic agenda in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Hahahahaha...
My son lives in Pittsburgh, so I follow PA politics somewhat. Santorum is a conservative so I would have voted for him despite his campaigning for Specter over Toomey in 2004. I’m not familiar with the other congressman you mention.
If you wish to sit and quake in fear, that's your prerogative. I'll vote my conscience.
BTW, it's an open forum. Anyone is allowed to respond to anyone else.
I'll look forward to it. Right now I'm heading to bed. G'night
tueffelhunden
Since Feb 6, 2008
You may be on to something about this individual signing up to mislead misguided FReepers into throwing the election to Obama.
Obama the most dangerous man in America, bar none.
Obama is a trained agent of Saul Alinsky and his group of Marxists sewer rats.
Obama admits being a community organizer he just forgets to tell you that he organized for a communist organization.
From the Internet:
ITV
Few know it today, but Chicago was the birthplace of a powerful grassroots social movement that changed political activism in this country. “Community Organizing” was pioneered in Chicago’s old stockyards neighborhood by the soberly realistic, unabashedly radical Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky’s hard-nosed politics were shaped by the rough and tumble world of late 1930’s Chicago.
http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/002/anarchism/alinsky_radical.html
Saul Alinski wrote the book on American radicalism - two books, in fact - a 1945 best-seller, “Reveille for Radicals” and “Rules for Radicals” in 1971.
SNIP
Alinski, the master political agitator, tactical planner and social organizer didn’t mince words ...
“Liberals in their meetings utter bold works; they strut, grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement ‘which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.’ They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging both sides; they sit and still sit.
The Radical does not sit frozen by cold objectivity. He sees injustice and strikes at it with hot passion. He is a man of decision and action. There is a saying that the Liberal is one who walks out of the room when the argument turns into a fight.
Society has good reason to fear the Radical. Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives.
Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action - by using power. Liberals may then timidly follow along or else, as in most cases, be swept forward along the course set by Radicals, but all because of forces unloosed by Radical action. They are forced to positive action only in spite of their desires ...
The American Radical will fight privilege and power whether it be inherited or acquired by any small group, whether it be political or financial or organized creed.
He curses a caste system which he recognizes despite all patriotic denials.
He will fight conservatives whether they are business or labor leaders.
He will fight any concentration of power hostile to a broad, popular democracy, whether he finds it in financial circles or in politics.
The Radical recognizes that constant dissension and conflict is and has been the fire under the boiler of democracy. He firmly believes in that brave saying of a brave people, “Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!”
The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people.
That is the reason why Radicals, although frequently embarking upon revolutions, have rarely resorted to personal terrorism.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904228-2,00.html
Monday, Mar. 02, 1970
“The only place you really have consensus is where you have totalitarianism,” he says, as he organizes conflict as the only route to true progress. Like Machiavelli, whom he has studied and admires, Alinsky teaches how power may be used.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097651/posts
Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption
skynews.com ^ | 1.7.03 | Diane Alden
Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 5:06:35 PM by hope
Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption
Diane Alden
Jan. 7, 2003
Saul Alinsky died in 1972. He was a Marxist grassroots organizer who spent much of his life organizing rent strikes and protesting conditions of the poor in Chicago in the 1930s. However, unlike Christian socialist and activist for the poor Dorothy Day, Alinsky’s real claim to fame was as strategist for anti-establishment ‘60s radicals and revolutionaries.
Indeed, Alinsky wrote the rule book for ‘60s radicals like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Miller and Nancy Pelosi. He considered Hillary Rodham to be one of his better students and asked her to join him in his efforts as an organizer of radical leftist causes. But Hillary had other fish to fry on her climb to national prominence.
Alinsky had a true genius for formulating tactical battle plans for the radical left. He wrote two books outlining his organizational principles and strategies: “Reveille for Radicals” (1946) and “Rules for Radicals” (1971).
“Rules for Radicals” begins with an unusual tribute: “From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.”
The devil challenged authority and got his own kingdom, and that goes to the heart of what left is really about. That of course is to get power any way you can, including lying, cheating and stealing. The ultimate rule is that the ends justify the means.
COMMENT;
Obama is a true believer in “THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS”
As I said Obama is a dangerous person to be intrusting as POTUS.
This is so odd. Harry Reid was on Hannity & Colmes tonight saying McCain had swung hard to the right in the last seven years. Who to believe?
“Harry Reid was on Hannity & Colmes tonight saying McCain had swung hard to the right in the last seven years.”
Harry Reid probably thinks that Jane Fonda is a moderate.
I agree with Grunthor. McCain is an absolutely miserable, lying, disingenuous, liberal POS.
LOL too true!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
